2021 Off Season Discussion Thread

[simon IC]

We all kinda like to forget how bad J-Bouw's analytics were, and how much we all wanted to be rid of him, right up until the win streak and cup run happened.

edit: this isn't a response to what you said, moreso me looking for a non-pitchforky place to evaluate players

JBo was playing injured when everyone wanted him gone. But I agree, JBo always had terrible analytics, yet he was awesome to my eye test. Interesting.

 

[ezcreepin]

Idk if there's a stat like this, but there needs to be a transition statistic or passing statistic. Something like number of passes received and unreceived where it's like a pass that crosses the blue line or something from the defensive zone. Hits already kind of feel arbitrarily counted, so why not have a passing stat that's just as arbitrary. At least we could finally have arguments about people's transition game instead of using eye test and corsi.

 

[parliamentlite]

JBo was playing injured when everyone wanted him gone. But I agree, JBo always had terrible analytics, yet he was awesome to my eye test. Interesting.

There was definitely a contingent of "why are we devoting $5.4 mil to this guy!" and for a lot of that contract, he was persona non grata on social media. I'd be lying if I didn't say I was skeptical of his value myself too.

The team became a buzzsaw and suddenly everyone remembers him as the best defensive dman ever... love the guy but it's kinda retconning everything.

 

[Reality Czech]

Ahhhh....I'm sorry, but once again, the stats simply don't back that up. Scandella was our second leading PKer in overall ice time. (Just above ROR). The Blues were a bottom 5 PK team in the league. Scandella was also caved in on possession HARD. He had the third worst Corsi among D-men (Mikkola and Gunnarson [worst] were under him) and 5th worst overall (Bozak and Joshua were under him). Fenwick (unblocked shots) he was 4th worst overall, with only Bozak, Gunnarson, and Joshua under him. His Fenwick Rel was also 4th worst on the team. And don't give me that "He played hard minutes" crap, he was never out there against top lines. That was Krug/Parayko then Krug/Faulk.....then Walman/Parayko.

So basically, he was a shit PKer who was also getting getting caved in on possession 5v5 against competition that wasn't -that- difficult. Now I know what you're thinking - if all that's true, how did he lead in +/-? The answer, frankly, is luck. Scandella had the best PDO on the team by far at 103.2. He had the highest on ice shooting % among all D at 9.8 and ALSO the highest Save % for at 93.4. He was a sub-replacement level player who was making 3.25M against the cap last season.

Now this season might be different, but he's a guy where we could do a lot better for the money we're investing in him.

Oh my, where to begin? Stl76 already proved you wrong when you said he "was never out there against top lines." It's not like coaches are able to get the match up they want 100% of the time, and I am not at all surprised that his QoC against was second toughest on the team on D. He absolutely played hard minutes and that is not an opinion. You act like he made all of his D partners worse, but isn't it possible that he was paired with them in the most challenging defensive situations? Scandella is the guy who would be deployed purely for defensive reasons, which might make his advanced stats look worse in a vacuum.

As for the PK, I guess by your logic ROR is also a "shit PKer" since he was on the same unit as Scandella. PK is more of a team stat, I'm not blaming individual players that much. What is Scandella supposed to do, stop the other team's PP singlehandedly? The team needs to do better in that regard overall, but if you're gonna say he's a bad PKer then you have to say the same about everyone on the team.

You can criticize him all you want, but he is much better than replacement level. Not sure what you're expecting to get for that salary. Sure, he's not perfect but the expectations you seem to be placing on him are unrealistic. Advanced stats are helpful at times, but they don't tell the whole story. Answer me this, which 2 Blues d-men would you have on the ice in the last minute to protect a 1-goal lead? The answer is likely Parayko and Scandella and I'm pretty sure the coaching staff agrees.

 

[parliamentlite]

As for the PK, I guess by your logic ROR is also a "shit PKer"

I'm not trying to come across as a Scandella's alt, but this point is very important.

We tend to assign heroes and whipping boys, and never the twain shall meet.

 

[Reality Czech]

I'm not trying to come across as a Scandella's alt, but this point is very important.

We tend to assign heroes and whipping boys, and never the twain shall meet.

That's what bothers me most, some fans just fixate on certain guys and lose the ability to judge them objectively. How many Blues fans wanted Bouwmeester off the team before we won the Cup? Pat Maroon or Steen? Now we've got one ding dong who is obsessed with Faulk, many others who microanalyze everything Krug does, and those who somehow think Scandella is the problem with our defense, when he's one of our most reliable defensive d-men. Sure, individual players have their own strengths and weaknesses but they call it a TEAM sport for a reason.

 

[parliamentlite]

That's what bothers me most, some fans just fixate on certain guys and lose the ability to judge them objectively. How many Blues fans wanted Bouwmeester off the team before we won the Cup? Pat Maroon or Steen? Now we've got one ding dong who is obsessed with Faulk, many others who microanalyze everything Krug does, and those who somehow think Scandella is the problem with our defense, when he's one of our most reliable defensive d-men. Sure, individual players have their own strengths and weaknesses but they call it a TEAM sport for a reason.

We've got a team that is spending to the cap every year and is going to load its roster as best as they can. It's a competitive league. We've been better than at least 75% of the rest.

Teams have screwed up rebuilding even worse than anyone can claim we have in reloading

 

[Ranksu]

This is so funny. Ppl lose their **** over mediocre dmen who is overpaid. Doing his job decently not amaze by any means, but isn't exactly super bad, just 'meh'.

I doubt when his contract ends he doesn't get new contract in Blues if he doesn't take low AAV and term.

Not gonna miss him when he is gone.

 

[Blueston]

Idk if there's a stat like this, but there needs to be a transition statistic or passing statistic. Something like number of passes received and unreceived where it's like a pass that crosses the blue line or something from the defensive zone. Hits already kind of feel arbitrarily counted, so why not have a passing stat that's just as arbitrary. At least we could finally have arguments about people's transition game instead of using eye test and corsi.

It exists. Controlled entries and controlled exits. Not sure where to find it though.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

J-Bow was objectively terrible for long stretches of his time here.

Now, what he and Parayko did in the playoffs during the Cup run is a different story, b/c the playoffs are a different story. The sample size is so small that random chance takes on a much larger role. He and Parayko found a ton of success keeping teams out of the middle of the ice and keeping shots to the outside. But he struggled mightily during the regular season(s) and in previous playoffs, until he finally got his hip(s?) fixed AND Parayko came into his own AND the team bought into the Beurube concept. Furthermore, Scandella has never shown the type of ability that J-Bo flashed for years before becoming a primarily shut down defender. Yet we expect them to play similar roles on our team now (With the goal of winning the Cup).

I don't have an axe to grind with any specific player for any specific reason. The facts are that every major D partner he played with last year had better success without him then with him when it came to play driving. Advanced metrics exist to help give you the best odds of something happening, not ensure something happens. There's a reason Oakland can make playoffs but not win a series with Moneyball strategies. J-Bo is a great example of what can happen on the positive side of why stats aren't the be-all-end-all. I'm simply pointing out that Scandella has been shown to be a negative overall player that we're paying a reasonable sum of money to. Is he the Devil? No, of course not. But he is the perfect low-hanging fruit type guy that we should be looking to upgrade on come the TDL.

Right now, according to the metrics, when healthy, we should run:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

The odd man out here is clearly Scandella. Krug might not be a legit top pairing guy (Although he might have a Faulk-like change once we actually get a normal schedule with training camp and the ability for teammates to spend time with each other again) but he is clearly a top-4 guy, as are Faulk and Parayko. Bortuzzo has been holding down the fort on the 3D spot forever, and Walman had great success with both Bortuzzo and Parayko in limited showings. (Mikkola was pretty awful though - another area where we might want to try and find an upgrade).

If the Cup is the goal, and it should be, then Scandella is a guy we should be looking to upgrade on.

 

[Ranksu]

J-Bow was objectively terrible for long stretches of his time here.

Now, what he and Parayko did in the playoffs during the Cup run is a different story, b/c the playoffs are a different story. The sample size is so small that random chance takes on a much larger role. He and Parayko found a ton of success keeping teams out of the middle of the ice and keeping shots to the outside. But he struggled mightily during the regular season(s) and in previous playoffs, until he finally got his hip(s?) fixed AND Parayko came into his own AND the team bought into the Beurube concept. Furthermore, Scandella has never shown the type of ability that J-Bo flashed for years before becoming a primarily shut down defender. Yet we expect them to play similar roles on our team now (With the goal of winning the Cup).

I don't have an axe to grind with any specific player for any specific reason. The facts are that every major D partner he played with last year had better success without him then with him when it came to play driving. Advanced metrics exist to help give you the best odds of something happening, not ensure something happens. There's a reason Oakland can make playoffs but not win a series with Moneyball strategies. J-Bo is a great example of what can happen on the positive side of why stats aren't the be-all-end-all. I'm simply pointing out that Scandella has been shown to be a negative overall player that we're paying a reasonable sum of money to. Is he the Devil? No, of course not. But he is the perfect low-hanging fruit type guy that we should be looking to upgrade on come the TDL.

Right now, according to the metrics, when healthy, we should run:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

The odd man out here is clearly Scandella. Krug might not be a legit top pairing guy (Although he might have a Faulk-like change once we actually get a normal schedule with training camp and the ability for teammates to spend time with each other again) but he is clearly a top-4 guy, as are Faulk and Parayko. Bortuzzo has been holding down the fort on the 3D spot forever, and Walman had great success with both Bortuzzo and Parayko in limited showings. (Mikkola was pretty awful though - another area where we might want to try and find an upgrade).

If the Cup is the goal, and it should be, then Scandella is a guy we should be looking to upgrade on.

I'm fine with Scandella.

Krug should be out and get upgrade for real top2 LHD. Walman or Faulk can play Krug spot at PP.

X - Parayko
Scandella - Faulk
Walman - Bortuzzo

 

[Reality Czech]

J-Bow was objectively terrible for long stretches of his time here.

Now, what he and Parayko did in the playoffs during the Cup run is a different story, b/c the playoffs are a different story. The sample size is so small that random chance takes on a much larger role. He and Parayko found a ton of success keeping teams out of the middle of the ice and keeping shots to the outside. But he struggled mightily during the regular season(s) and in previous playoffs, until he finally got his hip(s?) fixed AND Parayko came into his own AND the team bought into the Beurube concept. Furthermore, Scandella has never shown the type of ability that J-Bo flashed for years before becoming a primarily shut down defender. Yet we expect them to play similar roles on our team now (With the goal of winning the Cup).

I don't have an axe to grind with any specific player for any specific reason. The facts are that every major D partner he played with last year had better success without him then with him when it came to play driving. Advanced metrics exist to help give you the best odds of something happening, not ensure something happens. There's a reason Oakland can make playoffs but not win a series with Moneyball strategies. J-Bo is a great example of what can happen on the positive side of why stats aren't the be-all-end-all. I'm simply pointing out that Scandella has been shown to be a negative overall player that we're paying a reasonable sum of money to. Is he the Devil? No, of course not. But he is the perfect low-hanging fruit type guy that we should be looking to upgrade on come the TDL.

Right now, according to the metrics, when healthy, we should run:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

The odd man out here is clearly Scandella. Krug might not be a legit top pairing guy (Although he might have a Faulk-like change once we actually get a normal schedule with training camp and the ability for teammates to spend time with each other again) but he is clearly a top-4 guy, as are Faulk and Parayko. Bortuzzo has been holding down the fort on the 3D spot forever, and Walman had great success with both Bortuzzo and Parayko in limited showings. (Mikkola was pretty awful though - another area where we might want to try and find an upgrade).

If the Cup is the goal, and it should be, then Scandella is a guy we should be looking to upgrade on.

This conversation is getting really tiresome, but I'll add my last two points:

a) Scandella is NOT a "negative overall player," he's a mid/bottom pair shut-down defenseman who does his job pretty well for the most part. Not sure what more you're expecting from a $3.3 million dollar player.

b) regarding advanced stats, what exactly do you mean by "having better success without him" and "play driving?" Scandella's role has nothing to do with driving the play, and his usage would be the light on offensive situations and heaviest on defensive situations. Wouldn't advanced stats appear to be worse when a guy is getting much harder assignments than most other guys? That would include whoever he's playing with. If you told me that guys have better advanced stats playing with Walman, for example, I would assume it's because they're being used in more favorable situations, not because Walman is a better player than Scandella. Unless I am misinterpreting the chart on dobberhockey, it appears that Scandella was given the toughest assignments of any d-man on the Blues last year and far more d-zone starts than any of our other top 5 guys.

Sure, try to upgrade Scandella if you want but he isn't even on my top 10 list of concerns with this team. With Parayko out most of the year, all of our D had to step it up and take on tougher defensive assignments and Marco filled a large part of that void. As far as I'm concerned he's doing the job he was brought in to do. Even if they acquire another D, Walman/Bortuzzo/Mikkola will be the ones riding the pine and that's an easy decision to make.

 

[Brian39]

I want to preface this comment by saying that I really enjoyed the debate on Scandella. I think there is a lot of truth to both sides and my personal belief/opinion is that the current state of analytics in hockey is poorest at measuring the contribution of defensive defensemen. Looking at last season, I don't think that Scandella was as bad as his possession stats indicate but I also don't think that he was as good as his goal-based stats indicate.

For me, the issue with Scandella is not about him being unworthy of his salary in a vacuum. I think that he does what should be reasonably expected out of a $3.275M D man. However, my issue/concern about Scandella is that in order to be a contender, the construction of our blue line needs more than the reasonably expected value of a $3.275M D man in his position of the lineup. For me, my "complaint" is directed at Army's decision to make Krug the #1 LHD on the roster on a long term deal at $6.5M. That decision (combined with the Faulk acquisition/extension) locked in Krug, Faulk, and Parayko as 3 of the top 4 and demanded that the next-best LHD must be big, defend like a #2 or #3 D man and be the backbone of a PK unit. Scandella fits those criteria as well as you can reasonably expect at $3.275M, but realistically you need a $5M+ guy to be well above average in all 3 areas. In my opinion, Scandella is a 2nd/3rd pair tweener D man on a contender and we are plugging him into a 1st/2nd pair tweener role.

I want to move Scandella not because he isn't worth his contract, but because I think we need a $5M+ caliber defensive LHD in order to be a contender and I'm not sold that we have the cap flexibility to keep a $3.275M Scandella on the roster as a 5th D man. I think we need an upgrade in the middle section of our blue line. We're not upgrading Parayko and Faulk/Krug have full NTCs. I don't think we can realistically upgrade Faulk at (or below) $6.5M without shedding serious assets and I think that Krug's contract currently has negative value. I just don't see how we could afford to bring in a legit 1st/2nd tweener LHD, keep Scandella AND afford Parayko's next contract. So that means that if we are upgrading the middle of the blueline, it just kind of has to be Scandella. Teams just don't really give up legit top 4 D men on bargain contracts with term. If we can find one and keep Scandella as the 5th D man, then that would be great. I just don't know how we do that.

It isn't that Scandella isn't worth $3.275M. It's that we need a player worth $5M+ in his role and can't do that without moving Scandella's contract.

 

[Ranksu]

I want to preface this comment by saying that I really enjoyed the debate on Scandella. I think there is a lot of truth to both sides and my personal belief/opinion is that the current state of analytics in hockey is poorest at measuring the contribution of defensive defensemen. Looking at last season, I don't think that Scandella was bad as his possession stats indicate but I also don't think that he was as good as his goal-based stats indicate.

For me, the issue with Scandella is not about him being unworthy of his salary in a vacuum. I think that he does what should be reasonably expected out of a $3.275M D man. However, my issue/concern about Scandella is that in order to be a contender, the construction of our blue line needs more than the reasonably expected value of a $3.275M D man in his position of the lineup. For me, my "complaint" is directed at Army's decision to make Krug the #1 LHD on the roster on a long term deal at $6.5M. That decision (combined with the Faulk acquisition/extension) locked in Krug, Faulk, and Parayko as 3 of the top 4 and demanded that the next-best LHD must be big, defend like a #2 or #3 D man and be the backbone of a PK unit. Scandella fits those criteria as well as you can reasonably expect at $3.275M, but realistically you need a $5M+ guy to be well above average in all 3 areas. In my opinion, Scandella is a 2nd/3rd pair tweener D man on a contender and we are plugging him into a 1st/2nd pair tweener role.

I want to move Scandella not because he isn't worth his contract, but because I think we need a $5M+ caliber defensive LHD in order to be a contender and I'm not sold that we have the cap flexibility to keep a $3.275M Scandella on the roster as a 5th D man. I think we need an upgrade in the middle section of our blue line. We're not upgrading Parayko and Faulk/Krug have full NTCs. I don't think we can realistically upgrade Faulk at (or below) $6.5M without shedding serious assets and I think that Krug's contract currently has negative value. I just don't see how we could afford to bring in a legit 1st/2nd tweener LHD, keep Scandella AND afford Parayko's next contract. So that means that if we are upgrading the middle of the blueline, it just kind of has to be Scandella. Teams just don't really give up legit top 4 D men on bargain contracts with term. If we can find one and keep Scandella as the 5th D man, then that would be great. I just don't know how we do that.

It isn't that Scandella isn't worth $3.275M. It's that we need a player worth $5M+ in his role and can't do that without moving Scandella's contract.

Is Krug in your point of view unmovable contract at currently? Do we need to give picks to move him?

 

[execwrite1]

J-Bow was objectively terrible for long stretches of his time here.

Right now, according to the metrics, when healthy, we should run:

Krug-Parayko
Scandella-Faulk
Walman-Bortuzzo

The odd man out here is clearly Scandella. Krug might not be a legit top pairing guy (Although he might have a Faulk-like change once we actually get a normal schedule with training camp and the ability for teammates to spend time with each other again) but he is clearly a top-4 guy, as are Faulk and Parayko. Bortuzzo has been holding down the fort on the 3D spot forever, and Walman had great success with both Bortuzzo and Parayko in limited showings. (Mikkola was pretty awful though - another area where we might want to try and find an upgrade).

If the Cup is the goal, and it should be, then Scandella is a guy we should be looking to upgrade on.

Good call - that looks like our strongest pairs.

 

[Brian39]

Is Krug in your point of view unmovable contract at currently? Do we need to give picks to move him?

It probably isn't truly unmoveable, because there are only a handful of those in the league (I'm talking Jeff Skinner levels of unmoveable).

With that said, I think that he would go unclaimed if we put him on waivers at the start of the season. He has 6 more years of a high AAV and a full NTC for the next 4. Most teams currently trying to win don't have the space to fit him in now and the rebuilding teams don't have incentive to take the contract of a player who will exit his prime when they plan to enter their window. I don't think any team would take on that contract on waivers, so we'd likely wind up having to give assets or retain salary in order to move him. The full NTC allows Krug to severely limit the market for him as well.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I'm also enjoying the conservation, but maybe for different and, most-likely, selfish reasons.

My early professional background is in the hard sciences, which involved intense statistical analyses. I've long transitioned away from being a lab rat to a career in finance. Still heavily data-driven, but I'm attracted to the more social aspects of finance.

Ice hockey is my hobby, but deep-diving players' statistics is aversive for me. All day long I juggle variables and luckily can avoid the statistics because I don't really have to care. It's all about right now in my job; not predicting future outcomes.

It's the same for trade proposals. I am not very good at them because I don't want to use the brain juice for my hobby, but when I do (like with the Tarasenko ordeal), the juggled variables become clearer. I don't want to think too hard about a hobby.

All of this is to say that I appreciate the work that some of you do in building your arguments, specifically when it comes to advanced statistics in hockey.

It's fascinating and I understand that when faced with compelling information, one must micro-adjust their position, at the bare minimum, and sometimes complete a 180º turn.

I've done it with Barbashev, assuming I believe the validity and reliability of The Athletic's model.

Others should heed good arguments.

When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging and graciously extricate yourself from an untenable position.

Thank you to all who do the statistical analyses of our favorite team and to those who are able to parse out the interplay of the variables involved in a trade.

Ciao

 

[Celtic Note]

I want to preface this comment by saying that I really enjoyed the debate on Scandella. I think there is a lot of truth to both sides and my personal belief/opinion is that the current state of analytics in hockey is poorest at measuring the contribution of defensive defensemen. Looking at last season, I don't think that Scandella was as bad as his possession stats indicate but I also don't think that he was as good as his goal-based stats indicate.

For me, the issue with Scandella is not about him being unworthy of his salary in a vacuum. I think that he does what should be reasonably expected out of a $3.275M D man. However, my issue/concern about Scandella is that in order to be a contender, the construction of our blue line needs more than the reasonably expected value of a $3.275M D man in his position of the lineup. For me, my "complaint" is directed at Army's decision to make Krug the #1 LHD on the roster on a long term deal at $6.5M. That decision (combined with the Faulk acquisition/extension) locked in Krug, Faulk, and Parayko as 3 of the top 4 and demanded that the next-best LHD must be big, defend like a #2 or #3 D man and be the backbone of a PK unit. Scandella fits those criteria as well as you can reasonably expect at $3.275M, but realistically you need a $5M+ guy to be well above average in all 3 areas. In my opinion, Scandella is a 2nd/3rd pair tweener D man on a contender and we are plugging him into a 1st/2nd pair tweener role.

I want to move Scandella not because he isn't worth his contract, but because I think we need a $5M+ caliber defensive LHD in order to be a contender and I'm not sold that we have the cap flexibility to keep a $3.275M Scandella on the roster as a 5th D man. I think we need an upgrade in the middle section of our blue line. We're not upgrading Parayko and Faulk/Krug have full NTCs. I don't think we can realistically upgrade Faulk at (or below) $6.5M without shedding serious assets and I think that Krug's contract currently has negative value. I just don't see how we could afford to bring in a legit 1st/2nd tweener LHD, keep Scandella AND afford Parayko's next contract. So that means that if we are upgrading the middle of the blueline, it just kind of has to be Scandella. Teams just don't really give up legit top 4 D men on bargain contracts with term. If we can find one and keep Scandella as the 5th D man, then that would be great. I just don't know how we do that.

It isn't that Scandella isn't worth $3.275M. It's that we need a player worth $5M+ in his role and can't do that without moving Scandella's contract.

I was just about to post something of a similar ilk those not as thorough or well developed.

Scandella isn’t a bad player at his dollar value. The problem is him playing too high up the chart or that we don’t have good enough players above him to play up the chart. If we had a guy like Petro on the team, then I think Scandella’s deficiencies in a 4-5D role would be less of an issue then they are on the team as constructed. Similar to how Gunnerson could slot in higher and not look bad.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Murray to Avs.

That pretty much takes out all the decent LHD available in free agency.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

Murray to Avs.

That pretty much takes out all the decent LHD available in free agency.

Chara and Hutton are the only two I’d consider at this point

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I've seen Chara's name come up several times in different places. What are you guys seeing in him that I can't see? He looks like a shell of himself out there, and not a guy I'd want to rely on in any capacity. I have a lot of respect for him, but I just think he's done. I'd much rather the Blues took a chance on a young guy who hasn't fully established himself yet.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Yeah, I'd rather find out if Mikkola or Walman are going to be players.

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

I've seen Chara's name come up several times in different places. What are you guys seeing in him that I can't see? He looks like a shell of himself out there, and not a guy I'd want to rely on in any capacity. I have a lot of respect for him, but I just think he's done. I'd much rather the Blues took a chance on a young guy who hasn't fully established himself yet.

He wasn’t bad at all in Washington last year per my friends who are Caps fans.

He’d also be very cost efficient, is a great leader in the locker room, and he obviously is massive. Blues could definitely use his net clearing presence on the back end, and he’s also still good with his stick. I’d absolutely take him to fill the “Gunnarsson” role.

 

[ezcreepin]

He wasn’t bad at all in Washington last year per my friends who are Caps fans.

He’d also be very cost efficient, is a great leader in the locker room, and he obviously is massive. Blues could definitely use his net clearing presence on the back end, and he’s also still good with his stick. I’d absolutely take him to fill the “Gunnarsson” role.

The only reason I would add a guy like him is because he can mentor those less than perfect defenders we have *cough* Mikkola *cough*. I think he'd be a real nice influence on him and Walman, learning to clear the net and use their stick well, and then obviously being a voice in the locker room to keep everyone going. Only issue is none of the younger guys play if Chara and Bort are healthy.

 

[Renard]

Are you laying the Oshie trade on .. Bernie? I don’t like the guy either, but I can’t imagine that’s true. The Blues did appear to think they had a locker room issue and traded away the guy who most likely was the biggest partier. He cleaned up his act in Washington, but he missed a practice here (pretty spicy rumors about why). I think the Blues wanted to send a message and try to change their culture. I don’t think Bernie had anything to do with that other than a good guess on his part.

As I remember it, both Oshie and Bergland missed the same practice. it happened several years before Oshie was traded.